Talents starting in the game - fresh idea!

Hi

I am the researcher of a Danish premier league club and I feel that the PA code could use an overhaul. My problem is that practically none of the talents starting in the game from the danish clubs end up playing in the 2 best divisions, let alone the odd one going abroad, which does happen in real life once in a while. What happens instead is that after the 1st season or 2 all the original talents are put on free transfer, while they have been replaced be regens. I know that the regens, especially in DK, have been overrated and that will be fixed for 2010, but still it is dissapointing that so few talents make it in the top divisions in Denmark.

So here is the idea! Keep the CA/PA, but implement a third ability setting for players under 20 called MAP (Minimum Ability at Prime). Surely the would ensure that big talents (by Danish standards) would have a remote chance of making it in the Danish premier league or even first division.

Example:

Rasmus Falk - good young player, chased by several clubs in Holland and Italy in real life. He is from 1992 and currently has a CA of 65 in the game and a potential ability of -7. Yet he never makes it past a bench spot at a medicore club in Denmark. Surely there is no guarentee that he will make it, BUT you can be fairly certain that he will make it at 1.div level in DK at least. So his MAP could be 95 ensuring that he reaches this level no matter what. Having his PA at -7 just gives him the ability to become even better if he is trained and used correctly. The way the game currently works he will be relased on a free transfer, not develop and die out. By introducing MAP we do not give him certainty of playing in Holland or Italy, since the chance of that happening still is quite small, but we do give him a minimum ability as a certainty to match Danish semipro football.

Another example:

I research OB and they are located on an island. The island has several division clubs, but OB is the only big club in the best league. Normally most good players on the island pass through OBs youth system and end up in the smaller division clubs as seniors. In the game the clubs on the island get players from all parts of the country which does not happen that much in real life. By giving the best youth players in OB a MAP of 60 it would ensure that they reached a 2.division level and since OB have some of those clubs on the island as affiliated clubs perhaps it would be more likely that they ended up there automatically, which would make for a realistic and cool environment around the game.

I know that far from all talents make it, but some talents are big enough to have a minimum ability attachted to them in my opinion. It could be in indication of what they would realistically reach while playing football. In OB perhaps 1-2 would have MAP of 90, while 10-12 would have MAP of around 60, so it would not be used excessivly. The PA is never really reached with trainers and facilities in the Danish clubs so the original talents are more or less pointless to have. My point is that some make it through and we should ensure that it happens, not only in the big leagues, but in the small ones as well.

Thanks for reading. Any thoughts?

I havent been reading the posts you are mentioning, but I could imagine since the joy of producing talents is a big part of the game for many players out there. I have raised the same post in the researchers forum and I am eager to see how they embrace it. Hopefully my idea is constructed so that it would be fairly easy to implement as it is only a supplement to the already excisting system.

I really like the idea of MAP! i think it would bring more consistency to the ability that young players can reach

Good idea!

I like it. It means that the current problem of youngsters stanganting would go, as they would reach a certain level. The only problem is how to work this out.

Very good idea, could be some problems that my brain is too tired to attempt to explain but i think it should be considered for a future version of the game.

In a perfect world the game would figure this out for itself, but the system as it is now does not work. It is not perfect to give certain players a MAP, but it would solve the problem of clubs releasing every real player and replacing them with fictive ones as soon as possible.

My hope is that in a game time 1-2 original talents will make it. If not into my first team than into anorhter DPL team or a first division team. Maybe SI has something in store for us that will make the talent aspect of the game work, who knows

Oh yes, I almost forgot. Just as information I have only had one reply by a researcher and he is a bit more sceptic. His answer is that the game should generally be improved instead of a MAP being implemented.Would be nice if that could solve it, but if it could I guess it would have been done.

This is definately a good idea and I would really like to see it in future versions of the game.

This is a good idea. But what if I got a player in Blue Square North club which has poor training/youth facility? No matter how good his MAP is, I he still might not reach it.

This sounds like a half-decent idea, although a lot more thoughts will need to go into it.

Right now the problem with youngsters is that AI managers don't develop them so they die out.

"This is a good idea. But what if I got a player in Blue Square North club which has poor training/youth facility? No matter how good his MAP is, I he still might not reach it. "

Sure he might not reach it. But it could be coded so other teams chased players with high MAPs so he wouldnt stay in BSN

Why would other teams chase players with high MAP? Beacuse they have potential to be good? Well, that's exactly the same as PA then.

I like the idea, but not if it influences prospective buyers.

Sorry, but I really don't like this idea. For a start, how do you define a player's prime? It's different for different players, for different positions, for different styles of play, for different player physiques, for different injury records and so on. A player having a fixed PA is fine because it's basically a simplification of the players genetics, early development and footballing history up 'til the point the game starts. Having a MAP has no basis in any of that, it's a basically a hack to make sure that certain player become good enough, whereas player becoming good should depend on his history within the game, how many matches he's played and at what level, what coaching he's received etc. What would happen if a youngster breaks his leg twice and basically misses 3 seasons worth of playing? Surely he still shouldn't be guaranteed to become as good as if he hadn't broken his leg?

I don't deny that the development model can be improved, but it should be done by making the model more reaslistic, not introducing more kludges.

Prime is already determined in game, as is ability to progress toward PA, I don't see how it would affect the feature. It would be a matter of triggering MPA as soon as a player hits the ceiling for "prime", in the same way that cvertain ages trigger inability to make significant progress in CA.

How do you mean 'triggering MAP'? It needs to be considered long before a player gets anywhere near his prime to ensure he has that minimum CA when he hits his prime. It's basically forcing a player to improve, regardless of his circumstances, which is clearly a nonsense.

What would this mean for players at top clubs? I'm assuming they would also have to have a value for this? Would it then mean that they could never become so bad that they have to drop down a few devisions simply because they have a minimum level of ability? That seems strange to me.

Also, what about when players get old. Will this mean that they can only deteriorate to a certain level?

At first glance I though this looked like a good idea, but now I'm not so sure. Bigdunk makes a good point about it forcing a player to improve, that's not something I'd like to see.

How do you mean 'triggering MAP'? It needs to be considered long before a player gets anywhere near his prime to ensure he has that minimum CA when he hits his prime. It's basically forcing a player to improve, regardless of his circumstances, which is clearly a nonsense.

I don't disagree that that situation would be a nonsense, but onle as nonsense as a players age triggering inability to progress?

I don't see this feature as forcing a player to improve, I see it as giving them more of a chance to improve, with PA in mind and not languishing with low CA throughout their career.

I feel that players should have a range of PA in the game, and make attributes more sensitive to training. Training can be more transparent, for example if a player is constantly training in shooting, you can see the forecast of his stats.

In this way, a player with a high PA can be severly affected if not train well, and a player with a low PA can be highly rewarded with a good training schedule and has played lots of matches.

No, it's clearly not the same thing. There's plenty of evidence to show that in general the bulk of a players development is done early on in their career, and it slows down and then they declines as they get older. There's no evidence to suggest that a player has a minimum ability that he is guaranteed to achieve.

If you aren't forcing a player to reach a certain ability at a certain age, then you are suggesting something completely different to what the OP is suggesting. In fact, it's nothing radically different to the system we have now, except it's less dynamic as you are introducing another constraint into it. If a player is languishing around on a low CA, then either he isn't going to improve because his circumstances don't allow for it (which is perfectly realistic), or the development model needs improving (which I agree with, but there's no need to introduce a MAP).

No, it's clearly not the same thing. There's plenty of evidence to show that in general the bulk of a players development is done early on in their career, and it slows down and then they declines as they get older. There's no evidence to suggest that a player has a minimum ability that he is guaranteed to achieve.

Afaic it is the same thing, to an extent. Saying that a player can definitely achieve MPA is just as ridiculous as telling a left winger, "ooooh you're 24, sorry mate you can't improve further", both are nonsense. Of course the general bulk of development is completed early in the career, but to such a strict timetable? No, and there are plenty of contradictory exampels of players improving far beyond expectation, late in their career.

If you aren't forcing a player to reach a certain ability at a certain age, then you are suggesting something completely different to what the OP is suggesting. In fact, it's nothing radically different to the system we have now, except it's less dynamic as you are introducing another constraint into it. If a player is languishing around on a low CA, then either he isn't going to improve because his circumstances don't allow for it (which is perfectly realistic), or the development model needs improving (which I agree with, but there's no need to introduce a MAP).

I'm offering my interpretation of the system and how it could work. Thinking outside the box, this isn't necessarily a realistic feature, but neither is the frequency with which players fail to achieve a massive PA/inadequacy of the development module. Alternatives, no matter how unrealistic, should always be looked at with one foot outside the "realism" box afaic.

Where are you getting the idea that players don't develop their CA after 24, Elrithral?

If a player still has a gap between his CA and PA, and he's still playing regularly at a good level, I'm pretty sure his CA would continue to move up. Perhaps not at the same speed as when he was younger, but that seems quite reasonable.

I'm with bigdunk on this one - yes, the development curve probably needs to be worked on and so does the way in which AI teams develop and value their younger players, but a guaranteed CA at a certain age would be wrong (and one, thankfully, which I can't see SI ever implementing).

As far as I can see the current system isn't perfect but it does a pretty good job.

If you play a talented youngster regularly then he will improve a lot, if you don't give him enough chances he won't improve and fulfill his potential. This is exactly how it should be IMO.

A player who has been sat in the reserves between the ages of 17-23 or hasn't been given enough first team experience will not develop and I wouldn't expect him to. I certainly wouldn't like it if I left a 16 yr old in the reserves and did nothing with him at all, but then went to look at his profile when he was 24 and found out he is a superstar. That would be beyond ridiculous and it certainly wouldn't happen with any real life player.

If you want your talented youngsters to develop then play them, if you don't you can't complain and you can't expect them to develop at the age of 25/26 when they have only known reserve team football from an early age.

Edit: They may still develop a bit but not if as much as if they had been given more chances....

"This is a good idea. But what if I got a player in Blue Square North club which has poor training/youth facility? No matter how good his MAP is, I he still might not reach it. "

Sure he might not reach it. But it could be coded so other teams chased players with high MAPs so he wouldnt stay in BSN

In that case other teams should be already chasing that guy due to his PA since its higher than MAP. So whole CA/PA thing should work fine as it is.

What should be changed to solve your scenario is some degree of modifications in the AI manager and thier scouting/transfer logics. I think that's the point where SI should look into and if possible then accomodate these types of scenarios.

Where are you getting the idea that players don't develop their CA after 24, Elrithral?

If a player still has a gap between his CA and PA, and he's still playing regularly at a good level, I'm pretty sure his CA would continue to move up. Perhaps not at the same speed as when he was younger, but that seems quite reasonable.

I'm with bigdunk on this one - yes, the development curve probably needs to be worked on and so does the way in which AI teams develop and value their younger players, but a guaranteed CA at a certain age would be wrong (and one, thankfully, which I can't see SI ever implementing).

It's a flippant example, I understand what you're saying, but I don't consider it reaosnable. The example i'm trying to get accross is how unrealistic it is for a wingers progession to limited (not necessarily halted) once they hit a certain age. Now of course this is true to life, to an extent, but there have been manay examples of players significantly exceeding expectations after the fact and this isn't catered for, in game. Like I say, it's a flippant, not totally representative example, of an unrealistic area of the game.

Now, that doesn't mean that a guaranteed PA/CA is a good idea, but my addition to the suggestion was that it shouldn't be guaranteed, but should influence the potential of a player achieving PA, as well as how the game develops the player. That way it isn't just down to the game to decide how a player acheives potential, but it also isn't a certainty.

I.e. too many player in game don't reach potential, more should have the chance, but not all.

The game only develops the player if you give the player the chance to develop. So really you are in control anyway, not the game.

I bring youngsters through all the time and if you give them enough first team football, they develop just fine.

The game only develops the player if you give the player the chance to develop. So really you are in control anyway, not the game.

I bring youngsters through all the time and if you give them enough first team football, they develop just fine.

That would only make sense if you controlled every single team in the game.

I.e. too many player in game don't reach potential, more should have the chance, but not all.

I disagree with this. In the past (I.e FM08) the reverse was true. Give a player enough playing time at a decent club and he would always eventually reach his potential.

This year it is much better. You still get plenty of players reaching their potential, but you also get players that don't. Just like real life. The development model can still be tweaked but I feel this year they have come a long way and it is much more realistic than previously.

I outlined in your 'Newgens or Regens' thread teh different types of development you can now see in the game, and this is great imo.

That would only make sense if you controlled every single team in the game.

So do you mean AI controlled players never reach their potential?

Again I disagree. I've seen plenty of players in AI teams go onto reach their potential. In fact I've sold a few players who didn't look like improving for me, only to see them go on to be brilliant for the AI team I sold them to.

That would only make sense if you controlled every single team in the game.

What would only make sense?

I was obviously speaking from my teams point of view. I can develop youngsters just fine, but actually other teams around me certainly do brilliantly in developing young players.

I often check transfers of the bigger clubs and they regularly bring in players from lower league teams who sometimes go on to turn in to class players.

They also develop lots of youngsters, even Chelsea have produced half the current Scotland squad in my game and it's 15 years on!

I don't see the problem at all.

I don't think this would work, as if you set a minimum ability at prime, it means the player must improve at a certain rate to reach this. If an 18 year old has a CA of 40, a PA of 150 and a MAP of 100 for example, and their prime is 28, it forces the game to improve the player by 60 CA over a 10 year period, no matter what may happen to the player. This may be very unrealistic as the player could pick up long term injuries, or never play a game, yet the player would still improve at a quick rate.

Although a good idea there are massive flaws.

That would only make sense if you controlled every single team in the game.

I think we're all kind of agreeing in a sense, perhaps, that AI clubs don't develop their players as well as human player (can) do. [EDIT - although two people have since disagreed since I typed the post!] If SI can make some tweaks so that AI clubs value their young players a bit more, and have strategies to give them some game time or loan them out, I think the problem might be solved.

I know it's only anecdotal, but I've had to get rid of players in my squad who my coaches said had good/excellent potential, but who I couldn't give enough playing time to and who were getting a bit too old (22, 23, etc) for me to think they had a chance. When they've dropped down a level or two, I've often seem them come back to play at the top level by the time they're 26 or 27, where their CA has obviously developed quite a bit. As long as the PA gap is high enough, I think players can develop even at a later age.

So do you mean AI controlled players never reach their potential?

Again I disagree. I've seen plenty of players in AI teams go onto reach their potential. In fact I've sold a few players who didn't look like improving for me, only to see them go on to be brilliant for the AI team I sold them to.

Not all of them, but there are a good few who, on checking PA, could be world class, but spend their lives playing in reserves and sitting on benchs.

That happens IRL too though. Remember Denilson who joined Betis?

Not all of them, but there are a good few who, on checking PA, could be world class, but spend their lives playing in reserves and sitting on benchs.

I'd agree with that. But this is down to the fact that AI managers do not recognise talent and continue to play older players for far too long. It is an issue, but nothing to do with the PA system. If they play these players then they develop realistically.

It has nothign to do with the PA system, but it has everything to do with an added feature which could "Map PA" and influence how often it is achieved. Like a trigger for AI managers to suddenly realise that player has potential, ratehr than ignore it.

I agree with Chopper, it isn't the CA/PA system, it is the intelligence of the managers controlled by the game which needs looking at. They need to realise their players potential and play them.

It has nothign to do with the PA system, but it has everything to do with an added feature which could "Map PA" and influence how often it is achieved. Like a trigger for AI managers to suddenly realise that player has potential, ratehr than ignore it.

As others have said, an awareness of ability and potential of their players just needs to be worked in to general AI squad management, though, rather than artificial triggers or anything which might complicate the researchers job any further.

It has nothign to do with the PA system, but it has everything to do with an added feature which could "Map PA" and influence how often it is achieved. Like a trigger for AI managers to suddenly realise that player has potential, ratehr than ignore it.

It doesn't need a new feature for that though. It needs improvments to the existing features. And anything which controls a players ability outside of his actual footballing experience is both wrong and unnecessary.

As others have said, an awareness of ability and potential of their players just needs to be worked in to general AI squad management, though, rather than artificial triggers or anything which might complicate the researchers job any further.

Agreed, but that's best case scenario and hasn't happened in how many versions now? I'm not disagreeing with anyone, per se, but I do think that alternatives need to be explored, as the current system doesn't and hasn't worked for quite a while.

Agreed, but that's best case scenario and hasn't happened in how many versions now? I'm not disagreeing with anyone, per se, but I do think that alternatives need to be explored, as the current system doesn't and hasn't worked for quite a while.

Bit of a sweeping statement there considering my system works, as does Choppers by the look of it. Not perfectly but it works.

Agreed, but that's best case scenario and hasn't happened in how many versions now? I'm not disagreeing with anyone, per se, but I do think that alternatives need to be explored, as the current system doesn't and hasn't worked for quite a while.

This is true, there's absolutely no harm in exploring other solutions. In terms of development cost and time we might end up being stuck with an alternative to perfecting the AI manager intelligence.

I just don't think this is a particularly strong alternative

Agreed, but that's best case scenario and hasn't happened in how many versions now? I'm not disagreeing with anyone, per se, but I do think that alternatives need to be explored, as the current system doesn't and hasn't worked for quite a while.

Ah okay, well I see your point then.

My preference is for them to take their time and get the AI squad management right. I do wonder if it might be helped at all by the re-work of tactics (given that it seems the AI will be developing their tactics around the new system), but I'm perhaps being a bit optimistic.

I'm pretty sure SI won't introduce anything like a 'MAP' as in the the opening post, simply because they seem understandably averse to doing anything which complicates or adds to the researchers' workload.

Bit of a sweeping statement there considering my system works, as does Choppers by the look of it. Not perfectly but it works.

Considering your system works and ignoring the fact that chopper, RT ad bigdunk agree that development isn't perfect.

Ah okay, well I see your point then.

My preference is for them to take their time and get the AI squad management right. I do wonder if it might be helped at all by the re-work of tactics (given that it seems the AI will be developing their tactics around the new system), but I'm perhaps being a bit optimistic.

I'm pretty sure SI won't introduce anything like a 'MAP' as in the the opening post, simply because they seem understandably averse to doing anything which complicates or adds to the researchers' workload.

I must admit that my main concern is that i'm not so sure they can get it right. I'm far less optimistic and perhaps that's why i'm more eager to explore the alternatives than continue to work on soemthing that might never be 100%.

I said it isn't perfect either, but you said it DOESN'T work, which it clearly does, just not perfectly.

This wouldn't be a solution to it IMO.

Working on the managers intelligence would be better.

Oh for goodness sake Leeds. Earlier on you expected everyone to second guess that when you said the "The game only develops the player if you give the player the chance to develop" you meant your players and then you decide that such second guessing doesn't apply to anyone else and act like a pedant when I say that the system doesn't work.

It was obvious, so much so that nobody else missed the point, that I meant it worked, but wasn't perfect.

The problem with the proposed MAP system is that it potentially removes a lot of the effort on the part of the player since they have a CA they will always hit. Also, what happens if there's a big gap between a player's CA and MAP as they approach their prime? Would we have players gaining 60-70 CA very quickly to hit the MAP?

I think the game could do a better job of managing player development but the tools are already there, they just need to be utilised better by the AI.

Oh for goodness sake Leeds. Earlier on you expected everyone to second guess that when you said the "The game only develops the player if you give the player the chance to develop" you meant your players and then you decide that such second guessing doesn't apply to anyone else and act like a pedant when I say that the system doesn't work.

It was obvious, so much so that nobody else missed the point, that I meant it worked, but wasn't perfect.

Is there any need for that tone Elrithral?

Do I attempt to belittle you? I don't think so, so can you stop throwing your toys out of the pram please before another thread gets out of hand because you misunderstand my posts.

Do I attempt to belittle you?

so can you stop throwing your toys out of the pram

If ever there was a need for a :shakes head emoticon: I'll pop you on ignore and save myself the displeasure of watching you troll and you the ignominy of making such a ridiculously ironic statement, ever again.